Randomized Clinical Trial: A Normocaloric Low-Fiber Diet the Day Before Colonoscopy Is the Most Effective Approach to Bowel Preparation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy

Development and validation of a novel scoring system based on a nomogram for predicting inadequate bowel preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis of colorectal diseases. Identifying patients at risk of inadequate BP allows for targeted interventions and improved outcomes. We aimed to develop a model for predicting inadequate BP based on preparation-related factors.

METHODS

Adult outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy between May 2022 and October 2022 were enrolled. One set (N = 913) was used to develop and internally validate the predictive model. The primary predictive model was displayed as a nomogram and then modified into a novel scoring system, which was externally validated in an independent set (N = 177). Inadequate BP was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparedness Scale (BBPS) score of less than 2 for any colonic segment. The model was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

Independent factors included in the prediction model were stool frequency ≤ 5 (15 points), preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 5 h (15 points), incomplete dosage (100 points), non-split dose (90 points), unrestricted diet (88 points), no additional water intake (15 points), and last stool appearance as an opaque liquid (0-80 points). The training set exhibited the following performance metrics for identifying BP failure: area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, accuracy (ACC) of 0.818, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.397, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.162, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.850, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.723. In the internal validation set, these metrics were 0.747, 0.776, 2.099, 0.278, 0.866, and 0.538, respectively. The external validation set showed values of 0.728, 0.757, 2.10, 0.247, 0.782, and 0.704, respectively, indicating strong discriminative ability. Calibration curves demonstrated close agreement, and DCA indicated superior clinical benefits at a threshold probability of 0.73 in the training cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort for this model.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel scoring system was developed from a prospective study and externally validated in an independent set based on 7 easily accessible variables, demonstrating robust performance in predicting inadequate BP.

The efficacy of preoperative low-residue diet on postoperative ileus following cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of preoperative low-residue diet on postoperative ileus in women undergoing elective cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

This is a surgeon-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolling pregnant women at ≥39 weeks of gestation undergoing elective CS. Patients were preoperatively randomized to receive either low-residue diet (arm A) or free diet (arm B) starting from three days before surgery. The primary outcome was the postoperative ileus. The secondary outcomes were the postoperative pain (assessed through VAS scale), the quality of the surgical field (scored using a 5-point scale, from poor to excellent), postoperative complications, and the length of hospital stay. Perioperative data were collected and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were enrolled and randomized in arm A (n = 83) and arm B (n = 83). Postoperative ileus over 24 h was significantly shorter in arm A, compared to arm B (19.3% vs 36.2%). The surgical evaluation of small intestine was scored ≥3 in 96.4% of arm A patients versus 80.7% in arm B, while evaluation of large intestine, respectively, in 97.7% and 81.9%. Postoperative pain after 12 h from CS was significantly lower in arm A (VAS, 3.4 ± 1.7) compared to arm B (VAS, 4.1 ± 1.8). There were no significant differences as regards postoperative pain at 24 and 48 h, nausea/vomit, surgical complications, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a preoperative low-residue diet for women scheduled for elective CS would reduce postoperative ileus and pain. Further large-scale studies are required before translating these research findings into routine obstetrical practice.

Enhancing bowel preparation quality and tolerability in a low health literacy population in Western China: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Insufficient bowel preparation (BP) presents substantial challenges to the effectiveness of outpatient colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, particularly within populations characterized by low health literacy and poor adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, endoscopic controlled study involving 474 colonoscopy outpatients aged 18-80 years hailing from a low health literacy population with convenient access to WeChat. These patients were subsequently randomized into three groups: the control group, WeChat group, and the automatic reminder group (ARG). All people were administered 3 L of polyethylene glycol. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 6 or a segmental score of 2 was used as the primary outcome to evaluate BP quality. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR) and adverse events, etc. RESULTS: Our findings revealed that both the WeChat group (n = 158) and ARG (n = 158) exhibited significantly higher rates of adequate BP compared to the control group (n = 158) (WeChat vs. control, 79.1% vs. 61.4%; ARG vs. control, 74.7% vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, these educationally reinforced groups displayed improved BP compliance (p < 0.05). According to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), patients in the reinforced education groups exhibited lower overall anxiety levels (p = 0.001) and experienced fewer adverse reactions (p = 0.019). Compared to the control group, the PDR in the right hemi-colon was significantly greater in the WeChat group (11.4%) (2.5%), and a similar trend was observed in the ARG (7.6%). Additionally, individuals in the WeChat group reported higher levels of satisfaction with their colonoscopy experience (p = 0.043). In a multivariate analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors, WeChat-based re-education ([OR] 1.496, 95% CI 1.154-1.939; p = 0.002)) emerged as a protective factor for achieving adequate BP.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced education through WeChat can improve BP quality, and ARG applies equally to low health literacy populations.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the standard and most effective screening tool for colonic diseases and the accuracy of colonoscopy depends on the quality of bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients who underwent colonoscopy in 2018 and received 3 L of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes powder were included. They were instructed to drink 1.5 L the night before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L 4-6 h before the procedure given in doses of 250 ml every 10 min with 30 ml of simethicone given 4-6 h before the colonoscopy. Patient- and procedure-related parameters were recorded. An adequate bowel preparation was defined as all 3 segments rated 2 or 3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation scale. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6720 patients were included in the present study. The mean age of these patients was 49.7 ± 13.0 years old. Inadequate bowel preparation was found in 233 (12.4%), 139 (6.4%), 131 (7%), 68 (8.6%) patients in spring, summer, autumn and winter respectively. On the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.295; 95% CI: 1.088-1.542; P = 0.005), inpatient status (OR: 1.377; 95% CI: 1.040-1.822; P = 0.025) and season (spring vs. winter, OR: 1.514; 95% CI: 1.139-2.012; P = 0.004) were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Male gender, inpatient status and spring season were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. For patients with risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation, enhanced bowel preparation and instructions may help to optimize the quality of bowel preparation.

A NORMOCALORIC, LOW-FIBER DIET FOR COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION IS MORE ACCEPTABLE AND NON-INFERIOR TO A LIQUID, LOW-CALORIE DIET: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

•This is the first study in Brazil about diets to prepare for colonoscopy. •The normocaloric diet was not inferior to the liquid diet regarding the quality of the colonoscopy preparation. •Both diets were well tolerated, but the normocaloric diet was more accepted than the liquid diet. Background - Several publications have shown greater acceptance of less restrictive diets for colonoscopy preparation, without impairing the quality of the preparation, when compared to the clear liquid diet. Objective - To evaluate the quality, tolerance and preference regarding the colonoscopy preparation of a low-fiber, normocaloric diet compared with a hypocaloric liquid diet. Methods - This is a randomized, controlled, observer-blind study to compare two low-fiber colonoscopy preparation diets (hypocaloric liquid diet vs. normocaloric diet). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used to evaluate the qua-lity of the preparations, being considered adequate BBPS ≥6 in the global assessment and ≥2 in each segment. The same laxative was used in both groups as well as the "split-dose" regimen. Results - A total of 136 individuals were enrolled in each group. Adequate preparation was achieved in 90.4% of the individuals allocated to the liquid diet group and 92.6% to the normocaloric group. There was no significant difference in the quality of preparation and tolerance between groups. A higher patient acceptance to repeat the procedure if necessary was observed in the normocaloric diet group compared with the liquid diet group (P=0.005). Conclusion - The normocaloric diet has shown to be not inferior to the liquid diet regarding the quality of the colonoscopy preparation. Patient tolerance rates were similar between both diets, but a higher accep-tance rate was observed with the normocaloric diet as compared with the liquid diet.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and biomarkers: A new paradigm in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a sporadic, hereditary, or familial based disease in its origin, caused due to diverse set of mutations in large intestinal epithelial cells. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and deadly disease that accounts for the 4^th worldwide highly variable malignancy. For the early detection of CRC, the most common predictive biomarker found endogenously are KRAS and ctDNA/cfDNA along with SEPT9 methylated DNA. Early detection and screening for CRC are necessary and multiple methods can be employed to screen and perform early diagnosis of CRC. Colonoscopy, an invasive method is most prevalent for diagnosing CRC or confirming the positive result as compared to other screening methods whereas several non-invasive techniques such as molecular analysis of breath, urine, blood, and stool can also be performed for early detection. Interestingly, widely used medicines known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to reduce pain and inflammation have reported chemopreventive impact on gastrointestinal malignancies, especially CRC in several epidemiological and preclinical types of research. NSAID acts by inhibiting two cyclooxygenase enzymes, thereby preventing the synthesis of prostaglandins (PGs) and causing NSAID-induced apoptosis and growth inhibition in CRC cells. This review paper majorly focuses on the diversity of natural and synthetic biomarkers and various techniques for the early detection of CRC. An approach toward current advancement in CRC detection techniques and the role of NSAIDs in CRC chemoprevention has been explored systematically. Several prominent governing mechanisms of the anti-cancer effects of NSAIDs and their synergistic effect with statins for an effective chemopreventive measure have also been discussed in this review paper.

Single-Day Low-Residue Diet Prior to Colonoscopy Demonstrates Improved Bowel Preparation Quality and Patient Tolerance over Clear Liquid Diet: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Dual-Center Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population.

METHODS

This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Short-term intestinal effects of water intake in fibre supplementation in healthy, low-habitual fibre consumers: a phase 2 clinical trial

A randomised clinical trial was conducted on 20 healthy, low-habitual fibre consumers to assess the short-term effects of water intake (2 l/day) on fibre supplementation with wheat bran, pectin, and green banana flour. During the 14-days trial, fibre intake doubled in both fibre (n = 10) and fibre/water (n = 10) interventions (p < 0.001), whereas daily water intake increased from 538 to 1990 ml in the fibre/water group (p < 0.001). Weekly bowel movements increased similarly in both interventions (fibre: 6.8-8.8; fibre/water: 8.6-10; p < 0.01), while faecal weight (71-126 g; p = 0.009) increased in the fibre/water group. This group showed higher counts of faecal Bacteroides and Prevotella, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, and Bifidobacterium, whereas both interventions decreased the count of Desulfovibrio. Transient abdominal symptoms occurred less frequently in the fibre/water than in the fibre group (3 vs. 9 participants; p = 0.020). In healthy, low-habitual fibre consumers, short-term water intake helps the intestinal adaptation to fibre supplementation.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02838849.

High-Quality Colonoscopy: A Review of Quality Indicators and Best Practices

Colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to be the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US. Colonoscopy remains the best preventative tool against the development of CRC. As a result, high-quality colonoscopy is becoming increasingly important. Specifically, recent guidelines have highlighted pre-procedural, peri-procedural, and post-procedural practices, which promise to improve patient outcomes and reduce the mortality and interval cancer rates in patients undergoing colonoscopies. Despite the guidelines and advances in modern endoscopy, the procedure remains provider-dependent, which results in differences in outcomes. As a result, incorporating high-quality colonoscopy approaches early in training is key to improving patient outcomes. Additionally, ensuring that high-quality colonoscopy is practiced widely by endoscopists can lead to the most cost-effective care.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Low-Residue Diet Versus Clear Liquid Diet: Which Is Better for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy?

The goal of this systematic review was to compare the clear liquid diet and the low-residue diet to determine which is better for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. A literature search for randomized controlled trials on the effects of employing the clear liquid diet and low-residue diets before colonoscopy was conducted in major online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE). After the systematic review of all 16 studies, the outcomes including quality of bowel preparation, tolerance, willingness to repeat, and adverse effects were analyzed through meta-analysis. The statistical analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. No statistically significant difference was observed between the low-residue diet and clear liquid diet groups (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.19 [0.79, 1.81]; p = .41). There was no statistically significant difference between the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.21, -0.14]; p = .68) Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.19, 0.11]; p = .59) scores of the two groups. The quality indicators for colonoscopy of the two groups were not statistically significant. However, patient tolerance to the low-residue diet was higher (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.86 [1.47, 2.36]; p < .01). More patients in the low-residue diet group were willing to repeat the low-residue diet for bowel preparation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.34 [1.72, 3.17]; p < .01). More patients in the clear liquid diet group experienced hunger, nausea, and vomiting. People who employed the low-residue diet before colonoscopy had the same quality of bowel preparation as those with clear liquid diet. Meanwhile, the tolerance of people with low-residue diet was better than people with clear liquid diet, and these people were more willing to repeat the colonoscopy with less adverse events.

Impact of Prepackaged Low-Residue Diet on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of prepackaged low-residue diet (PLRD) on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PLRD with clear liquid diet (CLD) or self-prepared LRD were considered for inclusion. The analysis calculated the odds ratio (OR) for the rate of adequate bowel preparation, patient tolerance, willingness to repeat bowel preparation, tolerability of bowel preparation, and overall adverse effects. Five RCTs published between 2006 and 2019 (N = 561) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with the traditional CLD or self-prepared LRD, PLRD showed significantly higher rates of adequate bowel preparation (OR, 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.98; p = .01), patient tolerance (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.07; p = .002), and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70; p = .03), with no differences in adverse events (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.59-1.46; p = .75). Prepackaged low-residue diet improved bowel preparation quality, patient tolerance, and willingness to repeat bowel preparations. Importantly, PLRD does not increase the incidence of adverse events. This suggests that it is effective and safe to use PLRD for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Evaluation of an educational telephone intervention strategy to improve non-screening colonoscopy attendance: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy attendance is a key quality parameter in colorectal cancer population screening programmes. Within these programmes, educative interventions with bidirectional contact carried out by trained personnel have been proved to be an important tool for colonoscopy attendance improvement, and because of its huge clinical and economic impact, they have been widely implemented. However, outside of this population programmes, educative measures to improve colonoscopy attendance have been poorly studied and no navigation interventions are usually performed.

AIM

To investigate the clinical and economic impacts of an educational telephone intervention on colonoscopy attendance outside colorectal cancer screening programmes.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients referred to colonoscopy from primary care centres from November 2017 to May 2018. The intervention group (IG) received a telephone intervention, while the control group (CG) did not. Patients assigned to the IG received an educational telephone call 7 d before the colonoscopy appointment. The intervention was carried out by two nurses with deep endoscopic knowledge who were previously trained for a telephone educational intervention for colonoscopy. The impact on patient compliance with preparedness protocols related to bowel cleansing, anti-thrombotic management, and sedation scheduling was also evaluated. A second call was conducted to assess patient satisfaction. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 738 and 746 patients were finally included in the IG and CG respectively. Six hundred thirteen (83%) patients were contacted in the IG. The non-attendance rate was lower in the IG, both in the ITT analysis (IG 8.4% vs CG 14.3%, P < 0.001) and in the PP analysis (4.4% vs 14.3%, P < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, belonging to the control group increased the risk of non-attendance in both, the ITT analysis (OR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.27 to 2.58, P = 0.001) and the PP analysis (OR 3.56, 95%CI: 2.25 to 5.64, P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in compliance with preparedness protocols [bowel cleansing: IG 61.7% vs CG 52.6% (P = 0.001), antithrombotic management: IG 92.5% vs CG 62.8% (P = 0.001), and sedation scheduling: IG 78.8% vs CG 0% (P ≤ 0.001)]. We observed a net benefit of €55600/year after the intervention. The information given before the procedure was rated as excellent by 26% (CG) and 51% (IG) of patients, P ≤ 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Educational telephone nurse intervention improves attendance, protocol compliance and patient satisfaction in the non-screening colonoscopy setting and has a large economic impact, which supports its imple-mentation and maintenance over time.

Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

Great value in the early identification and treatment of adenomatous polyps or early canceration using colonoscopy has been recognized. A clear colonoscopic vision brought by good intestinal preparation will become crucial. Several studies have completed using the low-residue diet (LRD) versus a clear liquid diet (CLD) the day before colonoscopy that presenting contradictory results. Therefore, a more comprehensive and updated meta-analysis is needed to summarize the findings on the effects of LRD and CLD on intestinal preparation and the quality of coloscopy.The comprehensive search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane databases (February 2020). LRD vs CLD before colonoscopy were included in this study. Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the relative risk (RR) to evaluate differences in intestinal preparation, tolerance, readiness to repeat preparation, detected of a polyp, and overall adverse reactions.Total 16 studies (N = 3413) were eligible. Patients with LRD compared with CLD indicated significantly better of tolerability (RR 0.92;95% CI,0.85-0.99; P < .05) and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.93; P < .05), but no differences with adequate intestinal preparations, detected polyp or overall adverse reactions (all P > .05).Patients with LRD the day before colonoscopy show better tolerance and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation, and no difference with adequate intestinal preparations compared with CLD, but the recommended level of evidence is weak. However, in terms of the detection rate of intestinal adenomas, the LRD group is not weaker than the CLD group, for its evidence level is high, and can significantly reduce the hunger experience of patients.

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trail

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is considered a safe and effective tool for detecting colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients are hesitating to receive colonoscopy. Smartphone education may decrease the barrier of colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education in colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education on embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction in colonoscopy. The patients' embarrassment was measured by the colonoscopy embarrassment scale. The quality of the bowel preparation was evaluated by gastroenterologists according to the Aronchik Scale. The satisfaction of colonoscopy care was assessed by a satisfaction scale developed by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were analyzed in the smartphone education and control groups (n = 75 in each group). The smartphone education group reported fewer embarrassment (B = -2.78, P = .02) than those of the control group, the patients who were older (B = .15, P = .001) and who were male (B = 2.91, P = .003) showed higher embarrassment. Additionally, smartphone education group were likely to have better colon preparation (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.02) than that of the control group. Smartphone education also improved the satisfaction with care (β = 4.60, P < .001), and above normal body mass index decreased the satisfaction with care (β = -0.19, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases.

RESULTS

657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.

Recent Advances in Colonic Preparation for an Accurate Colonoscopy - How to Improve Our Practice to Meet the Quality Criteria

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major problem of global health. Screening colonoscopy is the gold standard in detection of CRC. A quality colonoscopy needs good indication, adequate bowel preparation, adequate examination time (30 to 45 minutes), a minimum 6 minutes time for mucosal examination during colonoscopy descent, a good centre adenoma detection rate. In 28-33% of the colonoscopies, the bowel preparation is unsatisfactory which leads to several hidden costs including the rise of preventable and treatable death rate regarding colorectal carcinoma. The ESGE (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) recommends a maximum of 10% poor preparations, threshold that is diffi cult to reach in many centres. Newer low-volume laxative regimens for bowel cleansing are better in the fi elds of compliance and tolerability than the classic 4L PEG with 2L PEG-CS (Clensia ®) being one of the new promising low-volume formulas. The low fi bre diet is now preferred due to better compliance and tolerability.

Low-residual diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare a low-residual diet (LRD) with a clear-liquid diet (CLD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials comparing LRD with CLD for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on September 20, 2019. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared using systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2019 with 4323 participants were included. LRD was comparable with CLD for adequate bowel preparation (P = .79; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.29). The detection rates for polyps (P = .68; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27) or adenomas (P = .78; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.23) were similar between the groups. There were significantly fewer advents in individuals in the LRD group: nausea (P = .02; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94), vomiting (P = .04; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98), hunger (P < .001; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53), and headache (P = .02; OR ,0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93). In addition, significantly more individuals in the LRD group found it easy to complete the diet (P = .01; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-3.00) and showed willingness to repeat it (P = .005; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.28-3.89). TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z curve crossed both the traditional boundary and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that LRD was comparable with CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. More clinical trials are needed to confirm other outcomes.